South Africa v Ireland, Match Thread

former total

phog wrote: »

If the argument is correct that the disciplinary hearing used the entry level for this type of offence what would a player that received a YC have got - two weeks with one week suspended? So in effect by CJ getting a red card he misses out on close to two games. As I said it smacks of face saving for the ref

A player who got a yellow would have got no ban, unless the citing commissioner cited him and the judicial officer subsequently considered it a red card offence.

phog

More nonsense from the hearing

Rúaidhrí O'Connor ‏@RuaidhriOC

Ireland haven't yet received the written decision on CJ Stander's ban. Murphy says it's probably too late to appeal.

CMOTDibbler

phog wrote: »

More nonsense from the hearing

Ah now, to be fair it was a five hour hearing followed by another three or so hours. That's a lot of writing and editing to produce a final report.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

More nonsense from the hearing

Another thing that commissioner has previous in. Wasn't there something about the written judgement being delayed on the SOB incident as well?

Mr Tickle

thomond2006 wrote: »

If Ireland won the second test and the series I think it's reasonable to expect changes.

before last week i would have thought the thing to do would have been to target the first and last tests and see some rotation for this one to let people recover. with the altitude and the amount of knocks i resumed they'd have this one almost seemed like a lost cause.
Now i'm not so sure. SA looked shaken. there'll be a backlash this week but if we can get through the first half hour or so and dominate like we did (with 15 men) last week they might panic.

thomond2006

I'm pretty sure the ERC written judgments take a day or so. Keep the pitchforks in the shed for now.

Edit: Sorry, not being fair. If it causes a hindrance to appeal then I agree.

former total

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Ah now, to be fair it was a five hour hearing followed by another three or so hours. That's a lot of writing and editing to produce a final report.

And as soon as it's produced, the IRFU are going to comb every word of it looking for a technicality to object to. The guy has to get it right.

People are just looking for things to get outraged about now, so that somehow, it won't be CJ's fault.

CMOTDibbler

Mr Tickle wrote: »

before last week i would have thought the thing to do would have been to target the first and last tests and see some rotation for this one to let people recover. with the altitude and the amount of knocks i resumed they'd have this one almost seemed like a lost cause.
Now i'm not so sure. SA looked shaken. there'll be a backlash this week but if we can get through the first half hour or so and dominate like we did (with 15 men) last week they might panic.

South Africa have to win this one to have any chance of winning the series. If we give up the second test before it starts, we're playing into their hands.

Mr Tickle

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

South Africa have to win this one to have any chance of winning the series. If we give up the second test before it starts, we're playing into their hands.

and I presume that's why they put this one at altitude. had we lost the first then this would be a huge task. as it stands they have a chance to get back into the series.
Honestly i thought we'd be 1-0 down by now and any win in SA would be considered a success. Much harder to know what to do now.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

former total wrote: »

Has to be Gilroy?!

You can't just drop a guy who sat on the bench for one of Ireland's most famous wins, and bring in a guy who's never sat on an Ireland bench before.

I know people want to see more variety in our approach to bench-sitting, and there are still people out there who think Joe's approach to riding the pine is too conservative, but Gilroy has earned another shot at that tracksuit.

Healy is just too unproven at this level of benching. Big risk. We just don't know how good he is at looking happy for his team-mates while he watches from the sidelines.

Gilroy was excellent on Saturday. He really dove on the ball and was clinging on for dear life even though play had actually been stopped a few seconds before. That's the kind of intensity I like to see. Can he keep it up for 3 or even 4 minutes though?

molloyjh

former total wrote: »

We just don't know how good he is at looking happy for his team-mates while he watches from the sidelines.

In fairness Madigan actually is above international standard there.

Adbrowne

former total wrote: »

A player who got a yellow would have got no ban, unless the citing commissioner cited him and the judicial officer subsequently considered it a red card offence.

Pascal Pape on Heaslip for example.

errlloyd

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Gilroy was excellent on Saturday. He really dove on the ball and was clinging on for dear life even though play had actually been stopped a few seconds before. That's the kind of intensity I like to see. Can he keep it up for 3 or even 4 minutes though?

I actually appreciated the 5 seconds or so Gilroy wasted by not jumping on the ball. It was pretty clever. We had advantage, we were gonna go back for it, so why end the play any sooner than he had to.

Clear Hearts

errlloyd wrote: »

I actually appreciated the 5 seconds or so Gilroy wasted by not jumping on the ball. It was pretty clever. We had advantage, we were gonna go back for it, so why end the play any sooner than he had to.

I said it to the wife, look at the cheeky fecker I was so happy with it

Pudsy33

Billysays no wrote: »

got that with the u-20s. fantastic. got that with wales, with, all blacks with england. that was it

so what would i change. nothing. SA will kill us and it might as well be with JOE'S SELECTION. So it will be two walls and utterly horrible. But it is us? Munster, Leinster, thats it?

I know this is an old post by now, but the 20s played a much more forward led game than the senior side did in their game. So I don't understand that point.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

errlloyd wrote: »

I actually appreciated the 5 seconds or so Gilroy wasted by not jumping on the ball. It was pretty clever. We had advantage, we were gonna go back for it, so why end the play any sooner than he had to.

I didn't actually know what was going on there. I could just see that everyone else seemed to have stopped playing but Gilroy was determined to hold onto the ball. Very clever if it was deliberate on his part. I had assumed he just didn't realise that it was a penalty

phog

former total wrote: »

And as soon as it's produced, the IRFU are going to comb every word of it looking for a technicality to object to. The guy has to get it right.

People are just looking for things to get outraged about now, so that somehow, it won't be CJ's fault.

Agree or disagree with a post/poster but less of the not so sly digs, please.

Edit

On the subject of the appeal, Murphy has said that CJ was charged with a dangerous tackle, whatever CJ did or didn't do I doubt many people would call it a tackle.

Imho, there's grounds to appeal but delaying the report almost ensures an appeal won't happen. Who does that suit?

The Lost Sheep

phog wrote: »

On the subject of the appeal, Murphy has said that CJ was charged with a dangerous tackle, whatever CJ did or didn't do I doubt many people would call it a tackle.

Imho, there's grounds to appeal but delaying the report almost ensures an appeal won't happen. Who does that suit?

It was still a dangerous attempt at a tackle/block
Look at law 10.4 e. You can look at what CJ did across many of the parts of this law.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=10&language=EN

jm08

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It was still a dangerous attempt at a tackle/block
Look at law 10.4 e. You can look at what CJ did across many of the parts of this law.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=10&language=EN

And the sanction is a penalty kick!

The Lost Sheep

jm08 wrote: »

And the sanction is a penalty kick!

And you will see the Laws book never states anywhere that an infringement is a red or yellow.

Adbrowne

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA_RY2Q2EwY

was searching for red cards dished out in the last few years and came across this one. The ref said it was high and reckless. Hoeta got 6 week ban. I think Stander got a fair enough ban.

Adbrowne

Adbrowne wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA_RY2Q2EwY

was searching for red cards dished out in the last few years and came across this one. The ref said it was high and reckless. Hoeta got 6 week ban. I think Stander got a fair enough ban.

That's the best example you could come across? Any relevant ones where a player was attempting to play the ball rather than the man?

andymx11

Adbrowne wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA_RY2Q2EwY

was searching for red cards dished out in the last few years and came across this one. The ref said it was high and reckless. Hoeta got 6 week ban. I think Stander got a fair enough ban.

An eye gouge would be more relevant than that.

Adbrowne

Basil3 wrote: »

That's the best example you could come across? Any relevant ones where a player was attempting to play the ball rather than the man?

The only similar one I can find is Labuschagne on Wilkinson from 2002 and he got 23 days. He hit Wilkinson with a late shoulder into the ribs.

The only reason I think the Rob Kearney one has relevance is it was for reckless contact with the head of an opponent.

Billysays no

thomond2006 wrote: »

If Ireland won the second test and the series I think it's reasonable to expect changes.

If Ireland lose the second test there definitely won't be any changes other than injury enforced ones.

CMOTDibbler

Billysays no wrote: »

If Ireland lose the second test there definitely won't be any changes other than injury enforced ones.

That really depends on the selection for the second test no?

Billysays no

You would have to think Joe will make no changes other than enforced one for the second test. The only unenforced change will likely be reddan for marmion

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Billysays no wrote: »

You would have to think Joe will make no changes other than enforced one for the second test. The only unenforced change will likely be reddan for marmion

Reddan deserves a shot at sitting on the bench for 80 minutes.

Adbrowne

Billysays no wrote: »

The only unenforced change will likely be reddan for marmion

Maybe Marmion just didnt follow the bench sitting gameplan last weekend.

CMOTDibbler

Adbrowne wrote: »

Maybe Marmion just didnt follow the bench sitting gameplan last weekend.

Did he give Conor Murray a big hug?

Billysays no

I watched marmion closely. He didn't look anywhere near as comfortable as other 'benchers' and I felt he let the show down a bit. Reddan has far more experience at this so I think its the correct call

CMOTDibbler

Billysays no wrote: »

I watched marmion closely. He didn't look anywhere near as comfortable as other 'benchers' and I felt he let the show down a bit. Reddan has far more experience at this so I think its the correct call

Well you may be right since he doesn't even warrant a capital letter for his name. He's definitely a lower case sub.

kingofthekong

How would people feel about a pack of


8. HEASLIP
7. RUDDOCK
6. HENDERSON
5. TONER
4. DILLANE
3. FURLONG
2. BEST
1. MCGRATH

Or do we stick with a winning formula, the boks are going to come out like a bunch of caged bulls in the second test.

phog

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It was still a dangerous attempt at a tackle/block
Look at law 10.4 e. You can look at what CJ did across many of the parts of this law.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=10&language=EN

Not one of those laws are close to referring to a player attempting to block down a kick. Not once is a block down mentioned and not one of the clips used as examples are remotely close to what CJ did.

Adbrowne wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA_RY2Q2EwY

was searching for red cards dished out in the last few years and came across this one. The ref said it was high and reckless. Hoeta got 6 week ban. I think Stander got a fair enough ban.

Not even close to being comparable incidents.

The Lost Sheep

phog wrote: »

Not one of those laws are close to referring to a player attempting to block down a kick. Not once is a block down mentioned and not one of the clips used as examples are remotely close to what CJ did.

Actually 10.4e.1 essentially refers to it. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. This covers it. He attempted to block a kick but tackled/
Of course a block down wont strictly be mentioned but he jumped and turned and he side on hit Lambie late and dangerously

phog

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Actually 10.4e.1 essentially refers to it. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. This covers it. He attempted to block a kick but tackled/
Of course a block down wont strictly be mentioned but he jumped and turned and he side on hit Lambie late and dangerously

No it doesn't cover it really. A block down is never a tackle, timed correctly or late.

The Lost Sheep

phog wrote: »

No it doesn't cover it really. A block down is never a tackle, timed correctly or late.

It was dangerous play.
Actually sorry. Its law 10.4(o) Late-charging the kicker that could also cover it. A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball.
He dangerously obstructed Lambie.

irishbucsfan

phog wrote: »

No it doesn't cover it really. A block down is never a tackle, timed correctly or late.

What? On what ground are you claiming that?

Adbrowne

phog wrote: »

Not even close to being comparable incidents.

I never said they were. The common ground is contact with the head. The only remotely comparable one i can find was from 2002 and a 23 day ban for a deliberate shoulder charge on Wilkinson after he made a clearing kick so I think the 2 cut to 1 for Stander is a fair enough call because there was no intent.

phog

Adbrowne wrote: »

I never said they were. The common ground is contact with the head. The only remotely comparable one i can find was from 2002 and a 23 day ban for a deliberate shoulder charge on Wilkinson after he made a clearing kick so I think the 2 cut to 1 for Stander is a fair enough call because there was no intent.

But basing an opinion on a ban being fair on non comparable examples is futile.

phog

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It was dangerous play.
Actually sorry. Its law 10.4(o) Late-charging the kicker that could also cover it. A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball.
He dangerously obstructed Lambie.

Ah, so you agree with me it was never a tackle.

clsmooth

kingofthekong wrote: »

How would people feel about a pack of


8. HEASLIP
7. RUDDOCK
6. HENDERSON
5. TONER
4. DILLANE
3. FURLONG
2. BEST
1. MCGRATH

Or do we stick with a winning formula, the boks are going to come out like a bunch of caged bulls in the second test.

The problem with that is you're leaving the bench very light on impact. The option to bring on Cronin, Dillane and Ruddock for the last 20/25 gives you a lot of power and pace at a time when games tend to be won or lost. Bringing on Jordi Murphy and Donnacha Ryan won't give you the same impact.

errlloyd

Adbrowne wrote: »

I never said they were. The common ground is contact with the head. The only remotely comparable one i can find was from 2002 and a 23 day ban for a deliberate shoulder charge on Wilkinson after he made a clearing kick so I think the 2 cut to 1 for Stander is a fair enough call because there was no intent.

Hogg shouldering biggar in the jaw was pretty bad.

Actually I just watched that back, it was pretty similar. Hogg probably has more control and more opportunity to not hit biggar in the jaw, but effectively the same offense.

Adbrowne

errlloyd wrote: »

Hogg shouldering biggar in the jaw was pretty bad.

That was just a cheap shot.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

Ah, so you agree with me it was never a tackle.

What exactly is it that you're trying to argue now? It's starting to look like you're trying to claim CJ did nothing wrong at all in his act of jumping into Lambies head. Surely you can't believe that?

jm08

molloyjh wrote: »

What exactly is it that you're trying to argue now? It's starting to look like you're trying to claim CJ did nothing wrong at all in his act of jumping into Lambies head. Surely you can't believe that?

Could you explain what you think CJ is doing here.

What I see is:
Pic 1 - Murphy & CJ jump at same time (you can see CJ's hand going up to try and block the ball).
Pic 2 - You can see CJ jumping up, not into Lambie

http://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/16/53/77/41/murphy11.jpg

http://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/16/53/77/41/cj_jum11.jpg

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

What exactly is it that you're trying to argue now? It's starting to look like you're trying to claim CJ did nothing wrong at all in his act of jumping into Lambies head. Surely you can't believe that?

I'm not arguing anything, others are arguing :pac:


My posts on this were around the following:
I thought he didn't deserve a red card.
From what I've seen on this incident I think the hearing was dragged out and that the commission was trying to save face

I think the charge of a dangerous tackle was a made up charge. I haven't seen word of an official report being made available to the IRFU yet. If the report isn't yet available then that as good as rules out the IRFU appealing and the charge and penalty sticks which might have an implication for CJ in the future.

The whole thing is a mess.

MadDog1999

From the looks of it this video pretty much makes Stander look guilty.
https://youtu.be/SVLH-od1pV8

But there is really no sure way to know if it was just wrong time at a wrong place. The thing is, I understand why they have to have an investigation. If I was the ref the first thing that would go on in my head when I see that collision I would be concerned about the health of Lambie and if he had a neck injury. To the ref, that would have looked like wreck less behaviour without even the king it could have just happened coincidentally, stander jumps and Lambie gets in the way. But, to the investigators Stander broke the laws of rugby. Even though it appeared to be a tackle and thus is considered to be a high tackle, Lambie was not holding the ball so 1) tackling above the chest is prohibited and 2) you must only tackle the ball carrier. So basically 2 regulations were broken at once. I want him to play the 2nd test match but the investigators seem to be going through this case with a fine tooth comb so if they do find something to clear Stander it will probably be too late and he would have missed his chance to play.

As others have said, if the penalty sticks, I don't think it would bid well for CJs future and reputation. I haven't seen an official report either but to my eyes that does look like a dangerous tackle.

phog, Stander did do something wrong and in fact it was very dangerous what he did. When you say "I think the charge of a dangerous tackle was a made up charge" are you implying that Stander bashing straight into Lambie nearly breaking his neck in the process is not a dangerous tackle? Luckily,Lambie was only left with a concussion nothing worse. CJ did do something wrong and that is what we are all trying to tell you.

Face the fact and move on. We all want him to play the 2nd test but realistically that is not going to happen. This is getting a bit heated so I am dropping my point here.

Neil3030

I'm in mixed minds about Stander. On the one hand, he goes up, leading with the knee, senses a collision and swings sidewise to protect from kneeing Lambie in the head and/or protect himself from a forehead to the jewels.

But you could also argue that he went up to block the ball with a secondary intention to clatter Lambie. That's the bit you can't really judge without reading the guy's thoughts. Knock him out? I'd sincerely hope not, but can anyone say for sure?

But in contrast, Hogg blindsided Biggar, made no attempt to block the ball, and left the ground well after the ball was gone, specifically to shoulder him in the chin. So in terms of intent and execution there is absolutely no doubt what he was up to.

jm08

What law did Stander break? He wasn't trying to tackle Lambie - its clear from those images above he was attempting a blockdown.

CJ isn't a dirty player - 2 yellow cards in his career to date (7 seasons) (1 for Bluebulls in Vodacom cup and 1 when playing for Munster) isn't bad discipline for a backrower.